Homosexuals can Marry says Iowa Court

[Godwynn]

Great News!

CNN

The ruling was in response to a December 2005 lawsuit brought by six same-sex couples seeking to wed. They were denied marriage licenses and claimed such treatment violates equal-protection and due-process clauses in the Iowa constitution.

The court also struck down a state law declaring valid marriages are only between a man and woman.

The Iowa District Court for Polk County advances the case to the Iowa Supreme Court which will make a final decision on same-sex marriage, according to Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal organization representing the couples

I hope the Iowa Supreme Court makes the right decision.

 

[GenMarshall]

The more I hear the Courts deciding about same-gender marriages. The more appalled I become.

Why? Because I believe that it should be up to the people to decide whether or not to allow it in a matter of a vote (Eather in an election or through their state senators and representitives) and not have our laws be decided in the courts.

I just favor the senators and representitives in a Republican Government and the people to make decisions on wheather or not to allow a certan law or action to happen, not just the case for same-gender marriages.

 

[Godwynn]

Why? Because I believe that it should be up to the people to decide whether or not to allow it in a matter of a vote (Eather in an election or through their state senators and representitives) and not have our laws be decided in the courts.

The basic rights of the people are not up to a vote.

 

[Gladi]

The more I hear the Courts deciding about same-gender marriages. The more appalled I become.

Why? Because I believe that it should be up to the people to decide whether or not to allow it in a matter of a vote (Eather in an election or through their state senators and representitives) and not have our laws be decided in the courts.

Bright day
Courts only decide according to the current law as it stands. Lawmakers still can change it.

 

[LucyDuke]

The more I hear the Courts deciding about same-gender marriages. The more appalled I become.

Why? Because I believe that it should be up to the people to decide whether or not to allow it in a matter of a vote (Eather in an election or through their state senators and representitives) and not have our laws be decided in the courts.

Our laws have always been interpreted in the courts. They're supposed to be working with stuff that's already law. If the legislature wants to lay out some new law, that's fine too.

Anyway, good for Iowa.

 

[LucyDuke]

The basic rights of the people are not up to a vote.

They always have been. Womens' suffrage, slavery, blah blah blah. Perhaps they shouldn't be. But they often are.

 

[GenMarshall]

The basic rights of the people are not up to a vote.

How is same-gender marriages a basic right? Do I have the right to marry some woman who crosses my street? No
Is driving a car basic right? No
Is practicing law a basic right? No

 

[Godwynn]

How is same-gender marriages a basic right? Do I have the right to marry some woman who crosses my street? No
Is driving a car with a license a basic right? No

You do have the right to marry a woman...

 

[Elrohir]

The basic rights of the people are not up to a vote.

So it's the courts job to decide what is a basic right, and what isn't, and the people aren't allowed to say that it isn't, or regulate it if it is?

That isn't democracy - that's an oligarchy. Judges are the servants of the People, not their kindergarten teachers.

 

[Godwynn]

So it's the courts job to decide what is a basic right, and what isn't, and the people aren't allowed to say that it isn't, or regulate it if it is?

That isn't democracy - that's an oligarchy. Judges are the servants of the People, not their kindergarten teachers.

People have inalienable rights. You may have heard that somewhere before.

 

[Elrohir]

You do have the right to marry a woman...

So do gay males. And gay females can marry men.

You're saying it's a constitutional right to marry whom you wish? Can you quote the clause where this is stated, for me?

People have inalienable rights. You may have heard that somewhere before.

Yes, they do - but they're clearly stated in the Constitution, not made up by federal judges.

 

[Gladi]

Do I have the right to marry some woman who crosses my street? No
Is driving a car basic right? No
Is practicing law a basic right? No

Actually.

Yes to first, if she agrees with it of course.

For second, I don't state has the right to deny you license if you passed all test and are of sound mind and health. In fact, I don't think it can stop you from taking those tests in the first place, even.

Third, hmm, only if you have a degree? I know there is a some kind of license, but I am bit fuzzy in that...

Yes, they do - but they're clearly stated in the Constitution, not made up by federal judges.

I am not good at US constitution, but isn't the role of judicial branch also defined there. Like a way to check on legislative? Checks and balances?

 

[GenMarshall]

Our laws have always been interpreted in the courts. They're supposed to be working with stuff that's already law. If the legislature wants to lay out some new law, that's fine too.

Well, what irks me (and perhaps a bit distant away from the Judiciary system) is that they seem to be doing the decision making for the people. Thats fine that they intemperate the laws so long as they don't make decisions for us (Unless a law is deamed by the highest court to be unconstitutional in eather the federal or state level)

You do have the right to marry a woman...

Show me where do I have the right to marry a woman. A woman still can refuse a marriage offer so that's not really a right to marry.

 

[Merkinball]

Godwynn is absolutely right.

This is such a non-issue. Who really gives a crap if gay people get married. They can't possibly wreck it. Straight people already did that.

 

[skadistic]

Well, what irks me (and perhaps a bit distant away from the Judiciary system) is that they seem to be doing the decision making for the people.

Yet you are ok with people taking away the decision making from the gays? You know the only people who's lives are actually affected by getting married.

 

[Gilder]

Show me where do I have the right to marry a woman. A woman still can refuse a marriage offer so that's not really a right to marry.

Not like that, silly. Is there anything stopping you from marrying a woman when you find one who says yes?

 

[Godwynn]

Show me where do I have the right to marry a woman. A woman still can refuse a marriage offer so that's not really a right to marry.

That is the stupidest strawman argument I have ever heard. Do you think a gay man can just go out and haul in another man and demand that they get married?

If the man and woman agree to get married they can...

 

[holy king]

why should non-gay people be able to decide about gay peoples rights ?

Show me where do I have the right to marry a woman. A woman still can refuse a marriage offer so that's not really a right to marry.

lol

 

[GenMarshall]

Yet you are ok with people taking away the decision making from the gays?

The gays are part of the people. They still have the right to vote just like any other average Joe who is over 18 and not convicted of a serious crime.

If they want same-gender marriages, they are still part of the decision making with a cast of a vote.

 

[Godwynn]

The gays are part of the people. They still have the right to vote just like any other average Joe who is over 18 and not convicted of a serious crime.

If they want same-gender marriages, they are still part of the decision making with a cast of a vote.

I think we should have a vote to take away your right to marry.

How would you feel then?